No Blood for Oil
WSJ.com - No Blood for Oil
September 14, 2005; Page A20
With $3 and $4 gas in some markets, all sorts of bad ideas are making a comeback. Price controls are the worst, but not far behind are Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, known in the Beltway argot as CAFE. What proponents of this idea won't tell you is that they're in favor of trading blood for oil.
This notion goes back to the 1970s, and requires automakers to produce cars that get more miles per gallon across their entire fleet. The leading current proposal, promoted by environmental groups and Congressional Democrats, would raise the standard to 40 mpg by 2010 from 27.5 mpg today.
This might save gas, but we know for sure it will cost lives. That's because a primary way auto companies meet CAFE standards is to reduce the weight of their cars. Auto weight fell by about 500 pounds per vehicle after CAFE rules were introduced in 1975. Research has consistently confirmed that the lighter the vehicle the more dangerous it is in a crash because there is less survival space and less physical structure to absorb impact. A 2001 National Research Council study concluded that CAFE contributed to 2,000 additional deaths on the highways each year. Raising the standards to 40 mpg could raise to 5,000 the number of annual CAFE-related fatalities, according to a study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Ralph Nader also knows lighter cars are more dangerous, though he too is a CAFE advocate. His 1972 book, "Small on Safety," described the lightweight Volkswagen Beetle as a death trap. One of the Beetle's primary attractions was its ultra-fuel efficiency. One cause of the Ford-Firestone defective tire episode of some years back was that Ford attempted to increase the fuel economy of the Explorer by making the tires lower in weight, thus contributing to the rollover effect, according to an analysis by none other than Joan Claybrook's Naderite offshoot, Public Citizen.
Under political pressure to do something, the Bush Administration proposed its own overhaul of fuel standards last month. The plan creates six categories of "light truck" vehicles and sets standards ranging from 21 mpg to 28 mpg according to size. This would increase fuel efficiency of SUVs, minivans and pickup trucks by about 6% starting in 2008. At least these rules were designed to balance fuel conservation against the dangers to passenger safety and the additional costs to struggling U.S. automakers. But it's a sign of the political times that the plan was ridiculed by the environmental lobby for not going far enough.
In fact, CAFE won't do much more to reduce gasoline use than higher prices are already doing. As oil prices have soared, cost-conscious drivers haven't needed politicians to tell them to look for more fuel-efficient cars. Sales of hybrids and high-gas-mileage cars are rising, and SUV sales have fallen off the cliff. Economist Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution, a long-time student of CAFE, has concluded that during the 1970s high gas prices had a far greater impact on reducing fuel consumption in the U.S. than did fuel regulations.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta says CAFE standards are "preferable to raising taxes on consumers." It's more accurate to say that CAFE is a hidden tax on consumers, with even the new modest standards eventually raising the costs of an SUV or minivan by another $250.
Imagine the media and Sierra Club uproar if a private manufacturer put a new product on the market that knowingly killed 2,000 people every year. Yet CAFE supporters ignore the scientific evidence and pretend that no trade-off between safety and fuel efficiency even exists. If Congress really wanted to help American drivers, it would repeal CAFE.
September 14, 2005; Page A20
With $3 and $4 gas in some markets, all sorts of bad ideas are making a comeback. Price controls are the worst, but not far behind are Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, known in the Beltway argot as CAFE. What proponents of this idea won't tell you is that they're in favor of trading blood for oil.
This notion goes back to the 1970s, and requires automakers to produce cars that get more miles per gallon across their entire fleet. The leading current proposal, promoted by environmental groups and Congressional Democrats, would raise the standard to 40 mpg by 2010 from 27.5 mpg today.
This might save gas, but we know for sure it will cost lives. That's because a primary way auto companies meet CAFE standards is to reduce the weight of their cars. Auto weight fell by about 500 pounds per vehicle after CAFE rules were introduced in 1975. Research has consistently confirmed that the lighter the vehicle the more dangerous it is in a crash because there is less survival space and less physical structure to absorb impact. A 2001 National Research Council study concluded that CAFE contributed to 2,000 additional deaths on the highways each year. Raising the standards to 40 mpg could raise to 5,000 the number of annual CAFE-related fatalities, according to a study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Ralph Nader also knows lighter cars are more dangerous, though he too is a CAFE advocate. His 1972 book, "Small on Safety," described the lightweight Volkswagen Beetle as a death trap. One of the Beetle's primary attractions was its ultra-fuel efficiency. One cause of the Ford-Firestone defective tire episode of some years back was that Ford attempted to increase the fuel economy of the Explorer by making the tires lower in weight, thus contributing to the rollover effect, according to an analysis by none other than Joan Claybrook's Naderite offshoot, Public Citizen.
Under political pressure to do something, the Bush Administration proposed its own overhaul of fuel standards last month. The plan creates six categories of "light truck" vehicles and sets standards ranging from 21 mpg to 28 mpg according to size. This would increase fuel efficiency of SUVs, minivans and pickup trucks by about 6% starting in 2008. At least these rules were designed to balance fuel conservation against the dangers to passenger safety and the additional costs to struggling U.S. automakers. But it's a sign of the political times that the plan was ridiculed by the environmental lobby for not going far enough.
In fact, CAFE won't do much more to reduce gasoline use than higher prices are already doing. As oil prices have soared, cost-conscious drivers haven't needed politicians to tell them to look for more fuel-efficient cars. Sales of hybrids and high-gas-mileage cars are rising, and SUV sales have fallen off the cliff. Economist Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution, a long-time student of CAFE, has concluded that during the 1970s high gas prices had a far greater impact on reducing fuel consumption in the U.S. than did fuel regulations.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta says CAFE standards are "preferable to raising taxes on consumers." It's more accurate to say that CAFE is a hidden tax on consumers, with even the new modest standards eventually raising the costs of an SUV or minivan by another $250.
Imagine the media and Sierra Club uproar if a private manufacturer put a new product on the market that knowingly killed 2,000 people every year. Yet CAFE supporters ignore the scientific evidence and pretend that no trade-off between safety and fuel efficiency even exists. If Congress really wanted to help American drivers, it would repeal CAFE.
posted by Marcel at 3:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home